The gap between the rich and the poor today essays

The gap between the rich and the poor today essays The gap between rich and poor in the world today. In the world of 1995, there are still huge differeces between rich and poor, developed and less developed countries. But why? Who is to blame? What can we do about it? Many things have been tried out to solve these problems, but does it work? It seems bizarre, that we, modern, intelligent people, have not yet succeded to get rid of the differences between DCs (developed countries) and LDCs (less developed countries). We try, don't we? Every year, we grant 2% of our Gross National Product, GNP, to foreign aid to help the LDCs to get a better standard of living (better agriculture, more and better schools and hospitals, access to health personell, medicines, etc.). On the other hand, is our "standard of living" the best for LDCs, and the one we should impose on them? For instance, what is the point of giving complex macinery like tractors and harvesters, which need expensive fuel and maintenance, to people who have harvested their crops by manpower for hundreds of years? We know for a fact that the money we grant is not being used adequately. A lot of the money is taken by the governments of the less developed countries, and a great amount of the sum are not being used to the purposes they are meant for. Bribery and corruption are huge problems in developing countries. It makes more sense to dig wells for people who walk for miles every day to get their daily water supply, than to support officials with BMWs and grand houses. The World Bank was established, and a large amound of capital was poured in, despite of the fact that the Third World lacked the level of infrastructure, the economic and social background, and the skilled personnel of Europe. The failure of this model of economic development to produce economic well-being and growth for most Third World countries is due to a number of factors. These factors include the concentration of economic resources in the...

WSJ and NPR Miss the Mark on Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS)

WSJ and NPR Miss the Mark on Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) Resume Oblivion has been a hot topic in the news. The Wall Street Journal published an article, Your Resume vs. Oblivion, reporting that the percentage of large companies using computerized Applicant Tracking Systems to screen candidates is in the high 90%; almost all Fortune 500 companies rely on these programs. The article points out that the systems, which can cost from $5,000 to millions of dollars, are efficient, but not foolproof.   Specifically, Tracking software    may miss the most-qualified applicant if that person doesnt game the system by larding [sic I think they mean loading] his or her rà ©sumà © with keywords from the job description. The article offers advice, which I recommend reading, on How to Beat the Black Hole.' However, the advice is not comprehensive.   The first item, for instance, instructs job seekers to mimic the keywords in the job description as closely as possible. If youre applying to be a sales manager, make sure your rà ©sumà © includes the words sales and manage (assuming youve done both!). Pardon me for saying so, but the above advice is 1) rudimentary, 2) a no-brainer and 3) limited in its value. The problem is that 99% of the people applying for a sales manager job are going to have the words sales and manage   in their resumes! Therefore, you will not get higher on any list by including these keywords. The same goes for most of the keywords in the job description, since many job seekers are getting savvy about matching their resumes to the posting. The Wall Street Journal is not the only major news provider who delivered misleading or incomplete information on this topic. Take NPRs 16-minute segment entitled Keeping Your Resume Out of Online Oblivion, where callers related stories of how they got interviews despite the reign of Applicant Tracking Systems.   View it here: You will hear some creative solutions in this spot on how to make it past the computers. You will also hear something misleading:   that hiring managers (i.e., human beings) program the ATS software to screen for certain terms. Do you really think that a company like Google or Starbucks is going to have a human being sit there and punch keywords into a computer for each of the thousands of jobs they post every day? Think again. No, human beings do not program these systems the systems program themselves! The keywords the computers are looking for are determined by the computers. And this is why qualified candidates are so often overlooked.